(1.) THE petitioner, Dial Singh, has approached this court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing F. I. R. No. 58 of 1990 registered under Sections 406 and 420, Indian Penal Code, by the police station, City Jallalabad, and the consequential proceedings thereof.
(2.) IN the said FIR (annexure "p-1"), it has been alleged, among other things, as follows : Balwinder Singh Aulakh and Dial Singh formed a finance company, that is, Asiad General Finance and Investment Company. Balwinder Singh was the managing director and Dial Singh was its director. The complainants were appointed as Sub-Divisional Manager, Jallalabad Division and branches located in Pipli, Dharamkot, and other places. The branches used to collect money from the villagers and used to deposit the same with the complainants, and the complainants used to hand over those amounts to Balwinder Singh Aulakh and Dial Singh. (The amount deposited on various dates have been detailed i-n the complaint ). These amounts were entrusted to Balwinder Singh and Dial Singh. The complainants came to know that Balwinder Singh and Dial Singh in order to usurp the amounts collected from the public by the branch managers and handed over by the complainants, have closed the company and misappropriated the amount deposited with them.
(3.) THE petitioner, Dial Singh, has filed this application alleging that he is innocent and has nothing to do with the Asiad General Finance and Investment Company. He claims that he is not the director. According to him, the case is of a civil nature and no case is made out against him under Sections 406 and 420, IPC. The petitioner contends that Sections 406 and 420 are antithesis of each other, The petitioner further contends that the case is of the year 1990, but till date the same has not been decided, in spite of the guarantee for speedy trial provided by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claims that till date only about two witnesses have been examined and they have also not deposed anything against him. The petitioner, therefore, claims that the FIR is an abuse of the process of the court and has to be quashed.